Manohar Kumar v. The Addl.Deputy Inspector General of Police
Case at a glance
- Order date
- 29 Oct 2004
- Bench
- G YETHIRAJULU
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India arts. 14, 16, 226
Judgment
Operative part
Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of a writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not issuing appointment letters to the petitioners for the post of Constables (General Duty) (Men) conducted in May/June 2004 at Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad as arbitrary and illegal and violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India by calling for the records of selection process and consequently direct the respondents to appoint the petitioners as Constables (General) Duty) (Men) for which test was conducted in May/June 2004 at Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad with all consequential benefits. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.S.SATYAM REDDY Counsel for the Respondents : MR.KANTHI.NARAHARI ADDL CGSC. The Court, at the stage of admission, made the following: ORAL ORDER In view of the averments made in Paragraph No.7 of the counter-affidavit that the petitioners were selected and wait listed for appointment with registration Nos.1400698 and 1400701, the writ petition became infructuous. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous. No order as to costs. ____________________ Dr.G.YETHIRAJULU, J. Dated: 29th October, 2004. *TSNR To
The Addl. Deputy Inspector General of Police, Group Centre, Central Reserve Police Force, P.O. Keshavagiri, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad-500 005.
The Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, P.O. Keshavagiri, Chandrayangutta, Hyderabad.
The Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, C.G.O. Complex, Lodhi Road, New Delhi-1.
2 CD copies.
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as infructuous
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — arts. 14, 16, 226.
Which court decided this case, and when?
Andhra Pradesh High Court, on 29 Oct 2004. The bench was G YETHIRAJULU.
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.